Can Some One tell me the Advantage of Linux over Windows

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Perhaps "I enjoy troubleshooting it" is a stretch

At least for me. Frustrating things really frustrate me - I get to the point where I am plotting to murder the person who came up with them. But afterwards, you realize that in the end it is worth it

 

[HarryAngel]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: HarryAngel

Originally posted by: DopeFiend
I'm going to chuck in my 2p's worth here

I'm a Windows Head. I'm not embarassed of the fact- Windows does what I want it to do, with admittedly sometimes a little fuss. I actually played with Mandrake 9.0 a while ago, and while I found it was okay (much better than what I've seen before), it still lacked the "completeness" that XP has shown me (waits for the flames to start).

I do enjoy learning, believe me, but I don't enjoy spending four hours messing around with a PCI 56k modem, trying to get it to be picked up by Linux, and then tearing my hair out when it dials using one massively complicated dialer, but not another, much simpler one. This is the kind of thing that has kept me with Windows, not to mention games and compatability.
Yeah, OpenOffice is good, but it's no MS Office yet (ducks quickly). Yeah I can play Q3 on Linux, but I play Counter-Strike (btw, does that work on Linux now?) and some other games, most of which will never be available on Linux. I know Wine is pretty good, but the only things I could get it to run were Notepad and Word97; nothing much else.

Lastly, I haven't found a Linux distro on the web who's Hardware Compatability Database lists my USB Allied Telesyn ADSL modem or my Radeon 9kPro as being supported (please correct me if I'm wrong here)- drivers are almost always, IMHO, out for Windows first.

Like someone else said, if you want to learn and think that Linux could be a good deal better than your current setup, then by all means give it a go. It might be a steep learning curve for you, it might not. Different people get on with it in different ways (and then you've got different distros to add more difference to that lol), but if it's only going to give you an alternative, not an improvement, then my opinion would be to stay with what you know.

Personally, I'd get an old, low-spec PC and stick Linux on it, have a play, get to know it, see if you like it. That's the only true acid test

Dopefiend

Very well said! I think that thats what most window users feel. It's not so much about willingness to learn new things, rather weighing in time spent and feedback. What many window users think is 'why invent the wheel again'? The answer is if you do spend hours with getting something very simpel going in linux (that is obvious in windows), later on when you get comfortable in linux, the feedback will be greater then you could imagine. its just a diffrent thing all together.
Having said that i think that learning in windows is also rewarding it's just 'diffrent' type of learning from linux. *.nix follows logic, while as windows things are just like that, there is not necessarly a logical reason for it.

Remember that a lot of us that got started in Linux and other Unix-like systems enjoy the hacking around. No matter how much I bitch about this or that piece of software to Ctho9305 over AIM, I enjoy troubleshooting it, and messing with it, and whatever else I have to do to get the damn thing working. So I spent ~2 hours yesterday working on something that ended up not working. I'll get it working, probably in a better way next week when I should have time to work on it again, but I learned a few things. It was fun, even the frustrating parts. Some people aren't into that, I can't blame them.

Very true, but hacking, messing around the system, trobleshooting spending hours in trying to get some code working is not limited to *.nix, believe me i have a co-worker (windows enviroment API code C/C++ programmer) who would anyday of the week make most of us look like n00bs regardless of our choice of OS.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: wickedone
I am Asking this because I have seemed to outgrow most games and am looking for somthing more out of Computers, I have Windows 98,Win 2k pro, Win 2k advanced server, and curently using Windows XP pro, was thinking of going back to 2K pro scince I dont realy need all the Fluf that Xp has and will be working with Auto cad, but would like another operating System to mess around with and learn.

Well, I could make a speech on the subject, but I won't. I can simplify Linux's superiority into two word control and customizability. I'm not really a full *nix nut yet though. That's obvious because this message is being typed in XP. I am starting to miss my DSL and Linux desktop though.....

 

[Nothinman]

I actually played with Mandrake 9.0 a while ago, and while I found it was okay (much better than what I've seen before), it still lacked the "completeness" that XP has shown me (waits for the flames to start).

I've been using Linux for ~4 years now and everytime I have to use Windows I'm reminded of it's incompleteness compared to my Linux boxes. It's all objective.

I do enjoy learning, believe me, but I don't enjoy spending four hours messing around with a PCI 56k modem, trying to get it to be picked up by Linux, and then tearing my hair out when it dials using one massively complicated dialer, but not another, much simpler one. This is the kind of thing that has kept me with Windows, not to mention games and compatability.

I havn't had to deal with a modem in quite some time, but when I was stuck on dial-up I made sure I owned an external modem because I know they work with absolutely everything.

Yeah I can play Q3 on Linux, but I play Counter-Strike (btw, does that work on Linux now?) and some other games, most of which will never be available on Linux. I know Wine is pretty good, but the only things I could get it to run were Notepad and Word97; nothing much else.

HL has worked in Wine for a lot of people, I don't personally play it so I can't tell you how difficult it is or not to get it working though.

Lastly, I haven't found a Linux distro on the web who's Hardware Compatability Database lists my USB Allied Telesyn ADSL modem or my Radeon 9kPro as being supported (please correct me if I'm wrong here)- drivers are almost always, IMHO, out for Windows first.

Another reason I avoid USB modems and the newest video cards. Although ATI does release Linux drivers, so you may be able to use your card just fine, I know nVidia releases drivers that are just as fast, or faster, on Linux for all their cards. It's no secret you have to be carefull what hardware you use with Linux, but I already do all kinds of research before I buy something because I got tired of dealing with crap hardware and usually the decent stuff works fine in Linux.

 

[Saltin]

I use Windows and support Microsoft because it pays my bills. The more systems running in a Windows networks, the more jobs there are for me. It's really that simple for me.

I get a decent amount of flax from Nix admins when I cross paths with them, but it doesnt phase me in the least. They arent smarter than me, and there is nothing they can do with thier systems that I can't do with mine. Linux interests me to a certain extent. I like it for simple things like running BIND or Apache. To be honest though, Windows delievers the features my users are looking for (corporate/business users), on thier desktops. I feel that's why Microsoft has a lock on the desktop market, thier product is easy to pick up and feature rich. End user's don't care about the same things you and I care about. They want features that make thier job easier to do. They don't care a lick about security and the sense of "freedom"

you guys are talking about.
Security is my job. Sure it may be a little tougher keeping up with patching on MS systems, but christ, it's not *that* difficult! Security is security regardless of the platform. You have to be proactive and you need to stay informed. I don't get burned because I pay attention. Infact, I think I've learnt a whole bunch just *because* of the various flaws and sundry exploits I've had to overcome.

I'm all for compeition and the open market. I'd like to see someone compete with Microsoft in the desktop market. The problem with Linux, from a competitive standpoint, is that it gets it's direction from a very atypical group of people. People who are zealous about computers. Hey man, that's great. I'm like that too.

Guess what? My Secretary isnt. And theres a whole lot more of her than there are of you.

 

[RealWarlock]

Great men think alike, Saltin.

For me, Windows get the job done. Period.

Linux have their weakness too.

Just checked last night that there is a security patch released for Apache Web Server.

 

[Armitage]

For me...

Stability: Windows has certainly gotten alot better, but still nothing like Linux if my office mates running Win2K on identical hardware are any measure. This was the original reason I started running Linux actually ... I had a simulation that took about 4 or 5 days to run on a windows box that had a MTBF of about 2 days.

Control: As others have said, I control my box, not MS. Every aspect of my box is under my control down to the littlest nit if I'm willing to learn how to do it (which ussually just means a trip to google). If I don't like the behavior of some application, chances are I can fix it myself, or ping the developer and convince them it's a good idea. I've done both a few times.

Freedom: I own my box. No EULA telling me what I can do with it. When I get a setup I like, I can replicate it as much as I want. No license keys or cracked copies to compromise myself with.

Ethics/Trust: Not sure how to say this exactly, but it's just a different feel to the Linux community. I can install pretty much anything I come across for linux and not worry that it's going to install spyware or take over/screw-up some aspect of my machine. Talking to my friends & colleagues, that doesn't seem to be the case with windows applications, free or otherwise. And it's generally trivial to uninstall things on Linux. Some windows stuff seems to fight tooth & nail to stay on your machine once its there.

Security: No antivirus for me. Remote exploits that would effect my desktop box are few, and tend to be fixed quickly, and before any exploit is available in the wild. I don't worry about e-mail attachements. Even if I were dumb enough to intentionally try to execute it, there's some advantage to being a minority ... it's almost certainly a windows app that won't run on my box

UI: I hate having to work on a windows box now. I can't survive without my multiple desktops and consoles. I have several different desktop environments to choose from, and full control of the look/feel/behavior of most of them. Linux systems are very scriptable, and remote access is not an exception. I can do just about anything on my box ... even over a slow connection ... that I could sitting in front of it, and without buying additional software. And the Linux CLI rocks! Windows has a CLI of course, but the DOS shell sucks. The only way a windows box is useable is with cygwin installed

Clusters/HPC: I do alot of work with cluster computing and Beowulf clusters run Linux or BSD. And big multiproccesor systems (SGI, Sun, etc.) typically typically run a varient of Unix as well.

Speed: I don't know if it's still true, I don't bother benching against Windows anymore. But when I switched from NT to Linux, in addition to the stability, I picked up a nice speed increase as well.

And finally, this is kind of a local quirk, but in my last job & current job, I am root on my Linux desktop box, whereas other people running the corporate Win2K image do not have admin privileges. They've grudgingly allowed me to run Linux, provided I admin & troubleshoot my own box. So I don't have to find somebody from the IT shop and convince them any time I want to do something. It gives me the flexibility to get alot done that could be held up significantly if I had to go through the IT shop mafia. And I don't have to run Exceed to have a reasonable interface to our clusters & SGIs Now if I could just convince them to ditch that fscking Lotus Notes :disgust:

 

[Nothinman]

Linux have their weakness too.

Just checked last night that there is a security patch released for Apache Web Server.

Noone said Linux or Apache were perfect, but go count the number of IIS exploits and the number of Apache exploits and tell me which one seems safer?

 

[Spyro]

I use Windows and support Microsoft because it pays my bills. The more systems running in a Windows networks, the more jobs there are for me. It's really that simple for me.

You work for Microsoft?!?! Really? Cool?

IOW, I don't think that Microsoft pays you directly right?

I get a decent amount of flax from Nix admins when I cross paths with them, but it doesnt phase me in the least. They arent smarter than me, and there is nothing they can do with thier systems that I can't do with mine.

Well, if you must know, there are quite a few things that I can do with my system that you can't. True, most of them are quite obscure, but then the amount of neat CLI tricks that you can do isn't really that important to the average end-user. Which isn't exactly what I thought this thread was supposed to be about, but then they all eventually turn to that subject anyway....

Linux interests me to a certain extent. I like it for simple things like running BIND or Apache.

Simple things??? LOL, you tell me which is simpler web browsing or typing up an office document.

To be honest though, Windows delievers the features my users are looking for (corporate/business users), on thier desktops. I feel that's why Microsoft has a lock on the desktop market, thier product is easy to pick up and feature rich. End user's don't care about the same things you and I care about. They want features that make thier job easier to do. They don't care a lick about security and the sense of "freedom"

you guys are talking about.

I've been running Linux as a desktop OS for about two years now, and I honestly don't see any *features* of XPs that make my job any easier. Saltin, have you ever tried installing a Linux desktop OS? Some of the installs are even easier than Win XP, and besides that, the finished system is also quite user freindly. If a nine-year old can log into the system browse the web, do his homework, and play a few games, without any difficulty then I'm quite sure that there really isn't much of a problem at all with destop Llinux. No most users don't care about security and freedom, but I do. I don't see why every Win vs. Lin thread eventually turns into an argument about Linux's potential as a desktop OS.

Security is my job. Sure it may be a little tougher keeping up with patching on MS systems, but christ, it's not *that* difficult! Security is security regardless of the platform. You have to be proactive and you need to stay informed. I don't get burned because I pay attention. Infact, I think I've learnt a whole bunch just *because* of the various flaws and sundry exploits I've had to overcome.

I agree with this point though. Security on any system is mostly based on the competence of the admin.

I'm all for compeition and the open market. I'd like to see someone compete with Microsoft in the desktop market.

O.K.

The problem with Linux, from a competitive standpoint, is that it gets it's direction from a very atypical group of people. People who are zealous about computers. Hey man, that's great. I'm like that too.

And Windows gets its direction from the same source......

Guess what? My Secretary isnt. And theres a whole lot more of her than there are of you.

Neither is that nine year old

 

[RealWarlock]

You may have heard this quote from the classic Star Trek where Scotty said, "The ship is only as good as the engineer who runs it."

Same thing apply to administrate the server whether it is Linux or Windows.

Great Windows administrators run absolute stable servers.

Bottom line: If you like Linux... use it. Same apply to Windows.

 

[thornc]

Advantages
+++
Samba....
Open Source....
Apache....
Software Raid....
-----------------------
Flaws
+++
Lack of standard API!
Lack of standard Desktop!
Poor driver architectute!
Marketing Image....

 

[Spyro]

Lack of standard Desktop!

I actually consider this to be one of its strengths

Marketing Image....

Tux!!!! Hmmm, didn't IBM try to do something about this not to long ago.....

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: thornc
Advantages
+++
Samba....
Open Source....
Apache....
Software Raid....

To be fair, the last two are available on MS OS also.

-----------------------
Flaws
+++
Lack of standard API!
Lack of standard Desktop!

I see the desktop bit as a strength. More choice for me, more competition driving innovation & quality. If the "standard" desktop was Gnome, I'd be disapointed. And if KDE didn't exist, I'd wager that Gnome would suck even more then it does now

WRT the standard API ... not sure what your getting at here. I assume you mean GUI APIs? Again, I see the choice as a good thing Qt vs. GTK vs. Motif. etc. Your choice of API doesn't constrain you much as I see it. But then, I don't do that kind of development.

Poor driver architectute!
Marketing Image....

 

[lowtech1]

From a desktop "user" point of view Linux can be a daunting task, because of unfamiliarity. For the average user (0r 99% of the population) Openoffice have more than enough features for their daily use, and personally I feel that most user would be fine with Wordpad/Kwrite. Actually Openoffice can be hook up to a data base back end just like the way that Access can be hook up to MS-SQL.

The power of MS Office greatness will not be realizes un less you constantly upgrade the OS to be compatible with Office realease (Office 2003 will not run on Win9.x/ME), while Openoffice run on Unixes/Linuxes/Mac/Windows 9.x/ME/NT4/Win2k/WinXP that MS couldn?t match. And I would like to see MS read/write non MS file format (crappy interpolate with Wordperfect), while Openoffice can do quite a good job of read/write Office format.

The Gimp is not as intuitive as Photoshop, but it is free. Adobe is planning to release a Linux version of Photoshop, and for now Photoshop run just fine under Win4Lin, and maybe Crossover Office & Wine.

As a workstation or server their is not thing better than a Linux/Unix box. If you are an MS serf, then what better than Windows, while there is another world out there that uses various languages with compilers that is available on most popular OSes. On a Linux/Unix LAN you don't need dedicate DC that could create havoc to your authentication and Exchange server if you have a major hardware failure that can take hours or days to repair. While on a popular Linux box all you have to do is making sure that the IDE controller is compatible, and your server would wakeup and funtion as if not thing happened in minutes.

 

[Saltin]

I've been running Linux as a desktop OS for about two years now, and I honestly don't see any *features* of XPs that make my job any easier.

Would you mind letting us know what your job is?

And yes, I've installed a couple of Linux flavours. I have a Red Hat box in my server room for simple network services (external facing BIND mainly), and I've got a couple of desktops with Knoppix on them as well. I don't mind it really. My argument doesnt revolve around ease of installation really. Features are what I was trying to focus on.

And Windows gets its direction from the same source......

To some extent, sure, but to a large extent, it's the demands the corporate desktop user and average home user is making that shape Windows.

Finally, no, I don't get my paycheque directly from MS, but my skillset is largely focused on enterprise level MS products, and it pays quite well :beer:

 

[Spyro]

Would you mind letting us know what your job is?

And yes, I've installed a couple of Linux flavours. I have a Red Hat box in my server room for simple network services (external facing BIND mainly), and I've got a couple of desktops with Knoppix on them as well. I don't mind it really. My argument doesnt revolve around ease of installation really. Features are what I was trying to focus on.

Like I said, what kind of features are in Windows that Linux doesn't have. Elucidate me, because if you're talking about IE and Clippy I'd like to let you know that I count their loss as my gain.

To some extent, sure, but to a large extent, it's the demands the corporate desktop user and average home user is making that shape Windows.

To a certain point this is true, but another strength of Linux is the large selection of distributions available. Red Hat, Debian, and SUSE are all gunning for completely different market sections.

Finally, no, I don't get my paycheque directly from MS, but my skillset is largely focused on enterprise level MS products, and it pays quite well :beer:

Well if it pays well......

 

[thornc]

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: thornc
Advantages
+++
Samba....
Open Source....
Apache....
Software Raid....

To be fair, the last two are available on MS OS also.

Yes, I know that. But from personnal expirience they work better on Linux!!

-----------------------
Flaws
+++
Lack of standard API!
Lack of standard Desktop!

I see the desktop bit as a strength. More choice for me, more competition driving innovation & quality. If the "standard" desktop was Gnome, I'd be disapointed. And if KDE didn't exist, I'd wager that Gnome would suck even more then it does now

WRT the standard API ... not sure what your getting at here. I assume you mean GUI APIs? Again, I see the choice as a good thing Qt vs. GTK vs. Motif. etc. Your choice of API doesn't constrain you much as I see it. But then, I don't do that kind of development.

I do to, but Joe Suit and Joe Sixpack (as someone calls them) could kerr less about that, they want/need something familiar on every
machine... note that I'm not saying that Linux desktops should copy Windows!

I mean a full standard API, or a standard API for every task... and yes I mean that having GTK, QT and Motif based apps is a pain! But worse are the other ones, anyone trying to install an unsuall app on linux will recall having to find some weird lib that needs to be installed! I mean if they can use a standard kernel, standard libc why not defining a standard API!!
I really hope that someday the LSB will define a set of libs that conpose a "Linux standard API" in a way that everyone can use them
and only them! (ok new things can appear and be merged...)!

 

[chsh1ca]

Ya know, the differences are nowhere near as big as you are making them out to be. I've had people who are regular windows users come over and use my linux box to do things, and it was a Redhat 6.2 box for quite a while, then it went to 7.1. These people had no trouble with finding stuff once I clued them in that KDE's K was the 'start menu'.

The main bitch I've heard is that it won't run their stupid inane 500K adware/spyware riddled downloaded games. Apart from that, nobody has really complained about something not working. RedHat I know has done a great job at making everything seamless.

Linux is better for me. I use it exclusively for my productivity stuff, and stick to windows only for games. That's really what it's all about. It's not that either OS is better than the other, it's simply personal preference. The lack of flexibility in windows is really not necessarily a bad thing for most people. The same applies to the lack of a single standard API for linux. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.

That being said, if you run a network, unless you have a VERY good reason to, any and all servers should probably be on linux or another unix, simply because they're more efficient than Windows 2000/NT when it comes to being a server. Again, that's IMHO, but to say that it is well suited for 'simple tasks' only is a rather tunnelvision view of its capabilities. I could rhyme off a couple dozen things that my current linux install can do that you'd be hard pressed to do with Windows. Try true server clustering (not failover) with windows and get back to me on how well it goes. From a pure efficiency standpoint, all other things aside, Linux is simply a more efficient kernel to run a server on.

 

[Saltin]

Like I said, what kind of features are in Windows that Linux doesn't have. Elucidate me, because if you're talking about IE and Clippy I'd like to let you know that I count their loss as my gain.

Obvously not, don't patronize me. I asked you about your job, b/c it is directly related to how you use a computer for work. I'm not talking about power using at home. I'm talking about work.... in an office.... doing business.

If you don't do that type of thing that's fine too, but it will make it difficult for me to illustrate my point.

 

[Spyro]

Obvously not, don't patronize me. I asked you about your job, b/c it is directly related to how you use a computer for work. I'm not talking about power using at home. I'm talking about work.... in an office.... doing business.

If you don't do that type of thing that's fine too, but it will make it difficult for me to illustrate my point.

I don't have a job, I'm a student, but I still don't see what additional *features* are available that they would be so complex as to prohibit you from describing them. I'm figuring, correct me if I'm wrong, that you mean MS Office, etc.

 

[n0cmonkey]

I'm not going to read most of this thread, but I will sum it up for most people: "MY PENIS IS BIGGER!"

Other than that, there are few technical reasons to use one over the other, most of the reasons are very subjective.

 

[Spyro]

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Saltin

Like I said, what kind of features are in Windows that Linux doesn't have. Elucidate me, because if you're talking about IE and Clippy I'd like to let you know that I count their loss as my gain.

Obvously not, don't patronize me. I asked you about your job, b/c it is directly related to how you use a computer for work. I'm not talking about power using at home. I'm talking about work.... in an office.... doing business.

If you don't do that type of thing that's fine too, but it will make it difficult for me to illustrate my point.

Well, I use Linux for my main workstation at work.
I admin a bunch of Solaris and RedHat boxes with it mostly, writing a few scripts here and there, installing an Apache server once in a while, a ProFTP server, etc etc, all the usual
And for this, I find Linux clearly supperior.

Not to mention, all the software I like is available on Linux, while it's often missing in Windows, or at best there's some semi-crappy port.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: Sunner
For me personally, one word is enough.

Freedom.
No EULA's to read through to make sure you don't do anything illegal without even knowing it.
No activation.
No serial numbers.
I can do whatever I want with it, want eyecandy? Grab the newest KDE and turn on all the bells and whistels. Want speed? Grab one of the boxes.
Tons and tons of good and free software.

And at work, I can't begin to tell you how much it does for my productivity compared to Windows, once you become somewhat "fluent" with *NIX, you'll love it.

Exactly why I like it, except screw KDE. Fluxbox all the way.

 

[TerryMathews]

I still say that Linux makes a superior system compared to Windows, and I invite any MCSE to prove me wrong.

Linux is more capable and more cost effective in the server role. I'm not going to argue the desktop role, as it's not quite there yet. That being said, WINE has made tremendous strides without any sort of assistance just last year. Linux will soon be Windows' rival, assuming that Microsoft does not legislate/contract Linux out of existence (TCPA, Palladium)